Thus spake Kommentariat

[wayfinder]

Very good Richard, the Kingdom is as their King. The light of truth is given to the priests, who then give this light to the kingdom of heaven and together they shine this light to the world. Those in the world who accept this light enter the kingdom. If the kingdom does not do this...

Revelation 2:5 NAS

'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first ; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place -unless you repent.

[jasd]

>>We will not be hearing from Dr. Rich until Aug., he was a naughty boy, he broke the rules.<<

Ah well, this thread will still be accessible come August.

One has to remember that it is forgiven for one to throw things. One may even be forgiven for buryig someone else's painted sandbucket and shovel, or for pushing what's his face off the swing - but kicking sand!—

THAT is considered bullying and a definite no-no. So, Dr Rich must have

kicked sand, eh?

Oh my! PC amok!

[Guest]

Rich told me via e-mail that musicman is out till august also. Thanks to e-mail I can keep right on argueing with Dr. Rich. We've got one going right now. He's trying to convince me that the Holy Spirit is a woman. But I have already caught him in a NON-truth.

[jasd]

I owe responses to posts in another thread; however, having labored over a post – I am loathe to submit it to a thread that is – going on 300 pages – therefore...:

The tangential observation that “ “Sunday” is a common work day” has been proffered as a dialogic point in the dialog re the issue of Sabbath/Sunday. To which one readily answers:

Indeed, Sunday is a common workday – to one who treats it as such; however, to one who sanctifies it and makes it holy unto the Lord – it cannot be a common workday. To make the argument is to reveal a

certain speciousness of the mind.

Further, the argument is made that Jesus Christ is “Lord of the Sabbath”. To which one might answer:

That is so; however, it is because the antecedent was “the Sabbath was made for man.” He called Himself ‘(S)on of man’, which identified Him as/with man – both of whom are ‘Lords of the Sabbath’.

You also (as am I) are Lord of the Sabbath in that it is yours to define – by the manner in which you keep it.

Mk 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Mk 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Mark the transitional “Therefore”; for this reason or cause, consequently... To wit: ‘the Sabbath was made for man, consequently, I also, am Lord of the Sabbath.’

To insist that the true Sabbath – the one inexorably bound to the Feast Sabbaths – is the same Sabbath which is kept by the Hillel II calendar of the Jews – is to make Gd a liar; for He said that He would remove the calendrical reckoning of the Sabbaths – and He did. Otherwise, He lies...

Lest one forgets – Jews readily admit that the Hillel II calendar is not Biblical. Moreover, Gd specifically stated in the OT – that the Sabbath was only for the COI (a sign between Him and them –Ex 31:17) and those who dwelt with them. It was not given to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Somoans, the Indians, the Aztecans, the Mayans, you, me, the Jackanapes, etc. (To insist upon overly severe strictures concerning the Seventh-day Sabbath is admittance that the COI are today extant and literal.)

The Hillel II calendar was NOT MADE BY GD – but BY MAN. To follow the Sabbaths therein fixed is to follow Sabbaths that are – what’s the term?—Oh, MANMADE!

Quote:

...it appears that Hosea 2:11 must be understood in the evident chiastic arrangement of the crucial terms. Thus, corroborating the linguistic and contextual factors, the above structural study strongly favors understanding the "sabbaths" of Hosea 2:11 as a reference to the ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. Since many scholars have directly linked the tripartite phrase to Hosea 2:11 with Col 2:16, this has vital implications for the meaning of the term in Colossians 2.

(cut from another thread)

“strongly favors”. “many scholars”. That is not to focus on the other equivocations or qualifiers throughout the preceding paragraphs. The borrowed quote is postulative, no more.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Several things: 1) verb tenses matter. ”Which are” (v17), chiasms (or purports thereof) notwithstanding – place Colossians 2 in an entirely different ballpark from Hosea 2.

2) why is [is] in brackets (v17)?

3) what is the body of Christ?

The Seventh-day Sabbath is the only law of the TEN that is subject to man. (Man can do this or that on the Sabbath; such as, help another with an overflowing commode, heat or otherwise prepare potluck after the church service, pull that dumb animal out of the ditch, etc; whereas, all of the other NINE are not at man’s whimsy...)

[jasd]

Quote:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

There may be those who disagree with the translated phrase, “the body of Christ.” – as non-literal. However, I think there is legitimacy in that translation. How would you take it if instead of “meat” – we substitute pork?—or where text has “drink” – we read Absinthe? The text should be abhorrent then, yes?

Indeed, it would be abhorrent to read that pork and Absinthe were the foreshadowing substance and/or reality of Christ.

I think that what is proposed following is more contextually true. Okay then,

let’s see if we can extract from the two texts its salient message, to wit:

“Let no man therefore judge you [...] but the body of Christ.” --St Paul

And what, exactly, is the ‘body of Christ’? The NT informs that it is the Xtian community, of course. That is, those who agree with us and those who disagree with us – all brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. That includes those who, according to St Paul, might comprise the least beautiful (or the most disagreeable) of the body – like, the hangnail, for instance :-(

Matt12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

[jasd]

Mk 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Before we find we’ve parsed Mark 2 too hastily and become too enamored with the clause “The Sabbath was made for man” – let’s consider that Mark 2:7 may, in fact, have held differently from what we suppose and have been a non-inclusive statement, as might be gathered from:

Matt 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.

Now, perhaps, Matthew 15:26 was meant to be taken differently than as it appears; then again, considering that Jesus Christ was part of the economy, traditions, and laws of the then Jews – He may have spoken forthrightly – as it is later set down in

the Babylonian Talmud – that nonJews (who are only capable of sin -- Baba Bathra 10b) are as cattle and dogs (Yebamoth 98a).

Of necessity, it may that Jesus Christ, for reasons not readily apparent, shared a language common to Him and His adversaries – whose terms (sub rosa?) were understood by both sides of the dialog; unless, of course, He otherwise elected to speak in parables...

[John317]

on that advanced from pages 326-328 of The GC...:

Quote:

And it clearly gives 1844 as the end of the 2,300 year prophecy.

jasd 12:12 Except that Gd lay the foundation, they labour in vain who buildeth the house.

The foundation which yields the date AD 1844 or &#145;43 cannot be substantiated by/in Holy Writ &#150; and was subsequently disavowed by even the very Wm Miller &#150; who first developed the assertion and date.

Can you show references for Miller's disavowel of the date 1843, 1844.

One thing that should be noted here is that Oct 21, 1844 was the first time that Miller recongized the date Oct 22 1844 as the date of Christ's expected appearing. Prior to 1843, Miller had always preached that Christ would come "about 1843." He never personally preached that he could know the day when Christ would come.

But until the day of his death, William Miller never disavowed the dates of 1843 or '44; all he did was admit the obvious-- that Christ didn't come. But he said he didn't know why. He never found anything wrong with the dating. Even Miller's critics could never find anything wrong with the way he interpreted the time prophecy. Nor did Miller's critics dispute his view that the earth was the sanctuary.

The dating, then, is biblically and historically solid-- what's wrong is the event they anticipated would happen at the end of that period. The disciples also got the event wrong: instead of God's kingdom being set up on earth, there hopes were dashed when Christ was crucified as a criminal. So both the Millerites and the disciples experienced a great disappointment, but those disappointments eventually resulted in God's message being proclaimed throughout the world.

Yes, Miller was wrong to believe the sanctuary to be cleansed was the earth. There can be no question of that, of course. But there is nothing in the Bible to show that the earth was the sanctuary. There is only one sanctuary that existed at the end of the 2300 morning-evening prophecy, and that is the sanctuary in heaven. Hebrews 9: 23 speaks directly of the necessity of a purification-- or cleansing-- of the heavenly sanctuary.

Hebrews 9:23

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

[jasd]

>>Can you show references for Miller's disavowel of the date 1843, 1844.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The foundation which yields the date [...] was subsequently disavowed by even the very Wm Miller [...] who first developed the assertion and date.

I believe the quote reads, "The foundation which yields the date [...]” – was subsequently disavowed.

>>There is only one sanctuary that existed at the end of the 2300 morning-evening prophecy, and that is the sanctuary in heaven.<<

You might find what the first post this thread proffers – interesting. Beginning from:

The following is a borrow...

[jasd]

Re the charge that “Sunday is a counterfeit Sabbath”:

made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; or, to put it succinctly:

‘intent to deceive’

The charge of “counterfeit Sabbath” is just so much chestnut and cornpone – obviously misapplied.

I think that the use of “counterfeit” re the Sunday worship of Gd is emblematic of the dichotomy inherent in those who also employ the argument that the RC hierarchy admit that their day of worship has no Biblical authority.

That is an astounding thing for the RCs to say was it their intent to deceive.

A fellow just can’t have it both ways when pressing a point. Anyway,

“...if the Hebrew calendar is rejected and if the Bible does not give the specific elements needed for a calendar, then it is impossible to have a calendar based on any authority other than that of the individual who created it (read Hillel II). As we have demonstrated, God did not reveal in His Word the required definitions and elements for a calendar. The Bible does not define a new moon. The Bible does not give us the specific point on earth that should be used to sight the new moon. The Bible does not explain what should be done when the new moon occurs late in the day. The Bible does not explain how we should deal with the fraction of a day that occurs in a lunar cycle. The Bible does not define precisely when the new year begins. The Bible does not define for us the relationship, if any, between the new year and spring equinox. Nor does the Bible define other elements such as the number of days in the monthly cycles or intercalary adjustments needed to keep the years in their proper seasons.” [italicized:mine]

“...the Bible doesn't reveal the rules for a calendar and how to define various astronomical events in relationship to the words actually appearing in it, ...”

The above ‘pull’ addresses only a very minor observation on the difficulty of ascertaining that this or that particular day is the day which Gd sanctified and made holy in the OT; that same day, the which we are supposedly knowledgeable – and with absolute conviction that we are justified in castigating any and all others who do not agree with us – re cycles of days...

Is this is o’ is this ain’t – arrogance?

What the above ‘pull’ quote does is – highlight the obvious – and provides certification that it was the OT priests who knew and kept Gd’s calendar – and when their sorry sinning fundaments were either terminated or hauled off in chains – the OT calendar was no more. The OT calendar was lost, gone, caputi con tutti, fin, fine, finito, fineesh, nada, zippo, zero, zed... It intersected extinguishing events. Yowzer! Yowzer! Yowzer!

When Gd had His prophets Hosea and Jeremiah (through his scribe) write, to wit: that the feasts, new moons, Sabbaths, etc – were to cease and/or be forgotten – He warn’t just whislin’ Dixie.

They expired, as history confirms.

The means by which the priests reckoned the OT calendar were lost – except unto Gd – who, "When the fullness of time was come, ...sent forth His Son,"

[jasd]

Matt 4:4 ...Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

To the above one might add: “rightly dividing...”

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Lam 2:6 ...the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

It can hardly pass unnoticed that – both Hosea and Lamentations describe Gd-events, which preceded the Gospel of Matthew – hardly allowing the subsequent parsing of Writ – without recognition of the Gd-caused cessation and loss of the means by which the Feasts and Sabbaths may be reckoned.

The text(s) reversing either Hosea 2:11 or Lamentations 2:6 is/are - regrettably missing.

We have a choice – to either utilize the present Hebrew or the Gregorian calendar – neither, which approximates the Gd-given calendar of OT Writ – except that they contain seven-day cycles.

“These facts are freely admitted by Jewish scholars. Rabbi

Louis Finklestein of the Jewish Theological Seminary of

America, was selected by the Kehillas (Jewish Communities)

of the World as one of the 120 top Jews who best

represented ‘a lamp of Judaism’ to the world. In a letter to

Dr. L. E. Froom, dated Feb. 20, 1939, Finklestein readily

admitted, ‘The present Jewish calendar was fixed in the

fourth century.’ Maimonides and most other Jewish

chronologers agree that the modern Jewish calendar is

based upon the ‘mean motions of the sun and moon, the true

[calendar] having been set aside.’ ”

(Hmmm, who was Dr. L. E. Froom?)

Given carefully exposited texts – we are all reminded to worship Gd in all humbleness of faith.

[wayfinder]

The question that begs to be asked is; does God, who lives in eternity, keep/observe time? The answer must be yes, because God created time on the fourth day of creation.

Genesis

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, to divide between day and night, and let them be for signs and for seasons(festivals/months) and for days and for years.

1:15 And let them be for light in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth, and it was so.

1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light for regulating the day and the lesser light for regulating the night, the stars also.

1:17 And God placed them in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth,

1:18 and to regulate day and night, and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Parenthesis mine)

There were two functions for the astromonical bodies (sun and moon). One function was to give light to the earth, the other was for the measuring of time. The sun meaured the days, weeks, years and the moon measured the months. The stars measured the ages, through the precession of equinoxes through the signs of the Zodiac.

When God initiated His kingdom in 1437 BCE, He began a kingdom specific calendar, which I call the restoration calendar others call it the Jubilee calendar. This calendar functioned on the year-day, one year (spring eqinox to start of the next spring eqinox, in the northern hemi., equaled one day).

[Exodus] 12:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,

2 This month [shall be] to you the beginning of months: it is the first to you among the months of the year.

Levitivus 25

1 The LORD then spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, saying,

2 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the LORD.

3 'Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop,

4 but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD ; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard

10 'You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family.

11 'You shall have the fiftieth year as a jubilee ; you shall not sow, nor reap its aftergrowth, nor gather in from its untrimmed vines.

12 'For it is a jubilee ; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat its crops out of the field.

13 'On this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his own property.

This calendar kept the time for restoration. In the fiftieth year restoration took place for everyone. Restoration is the first order for the kingdom of God and the restoration calendar kept the time for the accomplishment of this requirement.

Numbers 14:21 but indeed, as I live, all the earth will be filled with the glory of the LORD

All time that functions in the context of restoration is year-day, until the restoration calendar ends, which it did in 1995 on March the 19th.

God warned Israel that if they failed to let the land enjoy it's Sabbaths then He would remove them from the land and it would rest for all the years it did not rest. God let the land rest 70 years. God then told Daniel that there would be 2300 eve/morn (spring and fall equinoxes) until the sanctuary would be put back into it's original condition (resume it's functioning on behalf of the kingdom of God). Daniel was told that 70 sevens, of this time, were determined for Daniel's people (Jews) and their holy city.

Daniel 9

24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place

The statement the angel Gabriel makes clearly involves restoration, namely end of sin, atonement..., everlasting righteousness; also the prophecy of the 2300 eve/morn would be sealed up forever, because restoration of righteousness would already have been realized.

We are now in a delay between the expiration of the restoration calendar and the sealing of the 144,000.

Revelation 7

3 saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads."

The 144,000

4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel :

Revelation 10

6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer,

[jasd]

The purport is made that the Sabbath “marks” the act of Creation – and following, it is the continuing obligation upon mankind to observe a Seventh day in a cycle of days (as delineated by the Gregorian calendar, or other) – in memorial of that same Creation.

There is no Biblical text or passage, which has ever placed that ‘obligation’ upon any other than what constituted the OT COI – by and large.

Ex 31:17 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever. (needless-to-say, that Covenant, together with the specific condition of Exodus 31:17, was effectively nullified when the COI broke the conditions of the Covenant)

A straightforward question: what is a greater Act of Gd than that of Creation?—of course!—it is the Death of Gd with the subsequent Resurrection of Gd – that is, The Redemptive Act of Gd.

That Redemptive Act is, singularly, greater than another of the many creations of Gd.

What ‘marks’ that Act of Redemption?

Inarguably it is (though pitiably insufficient – and perhaps likened to two mites) the sanctification of a day set aside as Holy unto the Lord – commemorating, in reverence and worship, the Redemptive Sacrifice of Gd, a one-time and immeasurably singular event – unlike Creation, which seems to have been relatively common.

Given the relevant and constructive texts in Writ and an honest intellect – how is it possible that there are those who make their raison d’être denigrating almost the entirety of the Xtian community (the body of the Lord) for keeping that day – unto the Lord?

One can only surmise: obstinacy.

[jasd]

The argument is advanced that the anecdotal evidence of Jesus Christ and His Apostle’s keeping of the Sabbath is itself evidence of the immutable nature of the Ten Commandments as they pertain to the New Testament peoples. That is stated

in complete contrariness to what the Prophets Hosea and Jeremiah wrote – as inspired by the third aspect of Gd – that is, the Holy Spirit.

Lacking the text(s) establishing that Gd, subsequent to Hosea and Jeremiah, reaffirmed the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath – the fact that Jesus Christ and His Apostles kept the Sabbath argues only that they were obliged, whilst they dwelt in the ‘House of Judah’ and under its laws, to keep the Mosaic commandments/laws as practiced in the economy of the then Jews. Witness the fact that Jesus Christ was circumcised upon the eighth day – and the later witness of the words of Jesus Christ:

Matt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: ...

Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; ...

Whose seat did the “scribes and the Pharisees sit in”?—did not the laws of the Jewish economy issue from Moses’ seat? Well, if one, being a then Jew, lived in a Jewish economy – the only rational denouement is:

Jesus Christ and His Apostles, whilst in the House of Judah – were obliged – obedience to the laws, including the Jewish Sabbath – else risk being stoned to death.

The ‘Sabbbath’ anecdotes in the NT do not translate to an obligatory observance of the Jewish Sabbath by the collective Xtian. It is not Biblical.

[wayfinder]

I would point out two NT points from The Revelation. Israel is a kingdom, not a people, per se. The kingdom of Israel stands in readiness to be filled with the righteous.

Revelation 7:4 NAS

[The 144,000] And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel :

Revelation 21:10-12 NAS

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels ; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.

And when the kingdom of God/Israel triumphs over the kingdom of the world, the ark of the covenant of the victorious kingdom appears in the temple in the heavens.

Revelation 11:19 NAS

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened ; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm

That which is on earth is finite. That which is in heaven is eternal. The ark of the covenant "which is in heaven" is eternal. The ark of the covenant contains the Ten Commands which are the covenant of the kingdom.

[jasd]

The question is asked as to when Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping was caused to cease among the COI.

Given the many times the texts which answer that question have been posted upon these boards – this question borders obtuseness, imho.

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Lam 2:6 ...the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

It can hardly pass unnoticed that – both Hosea and Lamentations describe Gd-events that preceded the Gospel of Matthew (the NT) – hardly allowing subsequent parsing of Writ without recognition of the Gd-caused cessation and loss of the means by which the Feasts and Sabbaths may be reckoned – or, presumptuously -- observed.

Disabuse me should I err, but there exists no text reversing either Hosea 2:11 or Lamentations 2:6.

We are left only with the choice – of either resorting to the present Hebrew or the Gregorian calendar. Neither approximates the Gd-given calendar of OT Writ – except that they contain seven-day cycles.

Both are manmade. Ipso facto, following a Biblical Seventh-day Sabbath based upon either of these calendars is – impossible. It is suggested that it may also be intemperate to forward that it must be kept as this or that .org asserts – given the studied parsing of Biblical, umm, ‘truths’ – if you will...

Given the above, together with substantiating texts – such as:

Lam 2:9 ... the law [is] no [more],

perhaps then, the reason the Nine Commandments (less the Fourth) are reaffirmed in the NT is found in Lamentations 2:9.

Could Holy Writ be plainer?

One wonders how a .Org manages to incorporate the entire Bible in their belief system – and still are able to blithely gloss over relevant texts as did the Levite pass by the stricken wayfarer on the road to Jericho.

The above does not argue that the Seventh-day Sabbath no longer exists. It acknowledges that because of the COI’s continual pollution and profanation of the OT Sabbath – Gd removed His Sabbath – for holiness’ sake.

It will, however, be again kept in the Millennial new earth.

For one to insist that the OT Seventh-day Sabbath is yet now incumbent upon the Xtian and that it was covenanted with ‘Gentiles’ as well – is presuming upon Gd.

Reprising:

After causing the Seventh-day Sabbath to cease and to be forgotten in Israel and in Judah – one seeks in vain – anywhere in Holy Writ post Hosea and Jeremiah – where Gd reaffirmed the obligation of both Houses of Israel to keep the OT Seventh-day Sabbath.

However, should one take it upon him or herself, in belief, to sanctify the seventh day as holy unto the Lord and to keep it as such – it is so sanctified – and it would be a sin for him or her to profane it.

[John317]

Can you show references for Miller's disavowel of the date 1843, 1844.

Originally Posted By: jasd

The foundation which yields the date [...] was subsequently disavowed by even the very Wm Miller [...] who first developed the assertion and date.

I believe the quote reads, "The foundation which yields the date [...]&#148; &#150; was subsequently disavowed.

Can you show references to what William Miller wrote or said which you believe means he disavowed the foundation which yields the date 1843, 44?

It's important to remember that William Miller did not accept the Sabbath nor did he ever accept Ellen White's prophetic gift, and he didn't know why he had been wrong. All he knew was that Jesus hadn't come. SDAs have never taught that William Miller was correct in everything he said or thought. We don't accept what Miller taught simply because Miller taught it, and therefore, even if Miller had later disavowed the foundation which yields the date 1843,44, it wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on the issue.

[jasd]

>>Can you show references to what William Miller wrote or said which you believe means he disavowed the foundation which yields the date 1843, 44?<<

The answer, John317, is yes – and no. They are in my documents on the crashed hard drive I used when posting to the now defunct VOAF.

I’m hoping that soon – I’ll be able to retrieve and to download them onto a disc. I, forever the procrastinator, did not download them when I had both opportunity and time to do so. Shame on top me.

Then again, I may find when having downloaded those ‘crashed’ documents – that they do not necessarily reflect my extemporaneity – but may better exemplify the proverbial – few degrees of separation.

>>...and he didn't know why he had been wrong.<<

Ah well, it may be that that which occurred surrounding the proclamations of Miller and others – may have been expected in the early nineteenth century – given that he ignored Gd’s command to Daniel to seal the book – until the end of time when... such and such marked that time – instead – decided to wrest Writ beforehand.

>>...even if Miller had later disavowed the foundation which yields the date 1843,44, it wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on the issue.<<

But, I suggest that it would have – in that others following built, tangentially, upon Miller’s ‘timeline’ in direct disregard for the exactness of the revealed word as commanded Daniel by Gd.

It seems that Miller, rather than taking Daniel 12:4 at face value and forbore wresting Writ – instead, undertook to push ahead. Given that – he, at the least, ought to have begun his ‘timeline’ more fittingly as it coincided with actual historic events. The result of his premature action was that he seriously miscued; to wit:

one cannot simply begin the 2300 days prophecy as a cutoff from a command to restore the Temple – when prophetic text required the command for restoration of the City Jerusalem proper as the relevant terminus. The difference between the command to restore the Temple of Gd and the command to restore the City proper is HUGE!—and cannot be glossed over by the truly-seeking exegete.

His dates and his understanding of the ‘sanctuary’ in question – were wrong. Moreover, he neglected to wait upon the Lord, as did so many who were equally ‘disappointed’.

(you’ll be the first to know when I retrieve my documents from my crashed drive)

[jasd]

Time enough has passed for those who dissent from the views expressed in my posts to

Re: Rondo's Discussion about the Covenants and the Sabbath

to have “analyzed and challenged” them elsewhere.

There has been no follow-up, no initiation shown, by those wishing to engage my posts – elsewhere, as I had suggested.

Hence...

the following:

For reason made absolutely plain, but encountering incomprehension of said reason – I’m posting here on this thread – a few exchanges basically taken from

Re: Rondo's Discussion about the Covenants and the Sabbath

I value what I post and in general – will abstain from submitting them where they are ‘disappeared’ into an abyss of posts. Common sense, yes?

I’m beginning with this bit of dialog... following, and will continue sequentially – as to ensure that I respond to each post addressed to me on Rondo’s thread. (it may seem disjointed – that I begin with this particular post; however, I have already addressed a number of posts on the aforementioned thread)

Quote:

Quote:John3:17

Thanks for dropping by and posting your perspective.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

You're welcome, I'm sure. I value my perspectives as to shepherd them, somewhat. Losing them in 400+ pages of posts - some of which containing the smart-alecky tenor exhibited below is not my idea of shepherding Biblical truths.

>>I have not been smart-alecky, jasd. At I certainly didn't intend to be. Perhaps something I said came across to you that way, and if so, I apologize.<<

A gracious apology is oil upon waters. That said, the quote I deemed ‘smart-alecky’ followed:

Quote:

Quote:John317

Sounds like you don't want to have to give evidence and reasoning for you position

This was interjected into the dialog after my posting one “QR frame” observation and two following posts that responded to your interrogatories well enough to have forborne your precipitous and intemperate ‘opinion’. Excuses notwithstanding, you were “smart-alecky”. [/kindly spoken]

We were three of my posts into a dialog – and you were already with the smartass huckleberry jive... I thought you, as one who wears both a member’s hat and a moderator’s hat – erred – and I noted it.

Fact of the matter is – the only interrogatory I neglected to answer in-depth was your:

Quote:

Quote:John317

Explain what you mean here.

To which I responded, “My post was self-explanatory.” – which must have been the prompt for the following:

Quote:

Quote:John3:17

Sounds like you don't want to have to give evidence and reasoning for you position.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Ta-Da!!! the sort of reasoning giving rise to the sort of arguments contained in this thread??

>>Here is what my reasoning is based on: your remark:<<

Quote:

Quoted:jasd

Look John317, I proffer my posts that others might see – as though from another’s perspective..., and have no intention to post where they are lost in a 400+ page thread.

I posted an observation only – thinking the thread is practically finished.

>>I gathered from the above remark that you really didn't come here anticipating that your arguments and beliefs would be analyzed but merely to post a perspective and observation. It seemed to me that this is what you wrote. Perhaps I am completely wrong about the significance of your words.<< [ed.jasd]

PING!—Ping! Ping! Ping! (moreover, should you have missed it – my “QR frame” post dealt with the ‘keeping’ of the Sabbath – and not with the extraneity of your inquiries)

How have you inferred that my post indemnified me, if you will, from having my “arguments and beliefs” challenged?

I took the opportunity, as it presented itself, to post where – I thought – it would not be subsumed in an abyss of superfluity. My mistake.

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

Did you come at the last moment thinking only to post at the end and you wouldn't be asked to give an account of your beliefs in regard to the topics of the discussion?

(The above is a ‘cut and paste’. It is an incorrect attribution – since rectified. Perhaps, this parallels what Rondo has been complaining about.)

The question is inane. I’ve been proffering and defending my views re the issues of this discussion – since becoming a member. Perhaps, you unintendedly failed to consider that.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Cmon, I already provided the reason. Cogitate, rather than speculate.

>>I cogitated on your words here:

"I proffer my posts that others might see – as though from another’s perspective..., and have no intention to post where they are lost in a 400+ page thread.

I posted an observation only – thinking the thread is practically finished."

In view of your statements here, how are my conclusions based on speculation?<<

You ought to have taken more time to cogitate upon: “...and have no intention to post where they are lost in a 400+ page thread.” – as witness that very thing happening. You may have noticed that there was nothing, on my part voicing an unwillingness to dialog elsewhere – than where a ‘black hole’ had formed, as it were.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Anyway, should that be the case re myself what's to prevent me from having to support my position on Kommentariat or elsewhere?

>>What is this? Please explain. I dislike having to guess your meaning.<<

It is self-explanatory. How can I hit and run?—where is there to hide on this forum? Should I not have cared to be challenged re my views on this particular thread – how is anyone constrained from challenging me any-or-elsewhere on this forum?

Quote:

Quote:John317

I gathered from the above remark that you really didn't come here anticipating that your arguments and beliefs would be analyzed...

Illogical.

Quote:

Quote:John317

I think that's what Rondo also had in mind when he came here.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Yet, he stuck around for 400+ pages defending his position against even uncouth fonting.

Well, I suppose one is allowed to presuppose – once in a while.

>>Did you agree with his defense? I mean, do you think he is right about what he says regarding the Sabbath and the covenants?<<

Not entirely. I hold the position that the OT Seventh-day Sabbath (according to two credible prophets of Gd) had long since been removed from the COI – that is, both Houses – to be safekept by Gd until the Millennium – when everyone will observe the Sabbath. I cannot, however, vouchsafe that the Millennial Sabbath will be exactly as the OT Seventh-day Sabbath.

[jasd]

>>As to the fonting, there is nothing wrong in using large letters,<<

I suggest you rethink that, as it is [most] often used in a character that is uncomplimentary – witness your own use of ‘fonting’.

>>...particularly given the fact that Rondo almost never responded directly to any questions and he did not respond to most questions at all even when he quoted them.<<

This thread has put me to mind of shyster lawyers - who during discovery – overload the opposition with a paper dump – as to cause ‘best case’ to be obliterated.

(I left my computer on while I went to the convenience store for about 30-40 minutes. When I returned I found I had been spammed with about 15 posts – one of which was, like, way, way-way, waayyy outre'! {that – I will address when I encounter it in sequence below})

I suppose the fact that Rondo complained that he was trying to address adversarial posts, but that he was about five pages behind – was not apprehended by his spammers...

Quote:

Quote:John317

Did you read the posts on the thread...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Aw, sheesh, John317 I've already established yesterday that I did not read all the posts.

>>I'm not asking if you read ALL the posts but whether you read enough posts to give you a clear understanding of the various positions and arguments used by both sides of the question.<<

Oh, okay, “the posts”/“ALL the posts...” – I must have failed to recognize the synonymity. However, to the question: Yes, enough. And yes, enough to cause me to busy myself elsewhere...

>>But if you don't feel that you read very much of the exchanges, how could you make the following statement--

"the sort of reasoning giving rise to the sort of arguments contained in this thread"?<<

Although only following intermittently, I followed most closely the last pages. – those pages wherein the bruit of “liar” was part of the dialog.

Quote:

Quote:John3:17

...and do you take a particular position on the Sabbath?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Aw, sheesh, John317 you already know that I do. You've engaged me in my position on the Sabbath.

>>I'm asking about your position regarding this discussion on the Sabbath and the Covenant, especially in light of the exchanges between those opposed to Sabbath keeping and those who support it.<<

Yes, I believe that Rondo may have a legitimate platform for his argument in that the NT does exhort the Xtian to labor to enter into His rest... Why?—if the Xtian is already in Gd’s Sabbath/Rest – would he/she be exhorted to enter into His Rest?—unless there existed a typology...

My position lies more along the lines of a lost calendrical reckoning... Inasmuch as the OT informs us that the calendrical reckonings for the Seventh-day Sabbath were caused to cease/to be forgotten. There really was no longer an extant Gd-given Seventh-day Sabbath during the time of Jesus Christ – except, perhaps, for the “fullness of time(s) ” when the actual OT Feasts and the Seventh-day Sabbath coincided according to OT reckoning – the proverbial “Even a broken clock is right twice a day” confluence.

>>I'm interested in your reasoning about these issues and not merely in your idea that no one knows which day is the Sabbath.<< [ed.jasd]

It is exactly as I said, “No one knows...” - and given its implied significance - why do y'all slough along with 'tent-meeting' rehashes?-without a simple read of the pertinent texts?

Per reasoning – I’ve, over and over again proffered them for your, and everyone’s consideration. To observe an OT calendrical Seventh-day Sabbath requires an existing record of such Sabbaths - which do not exist. One cannot simply ignore two prophets of Gd whose text was the ‘loss’ of that/those same Sabbath(s),

anymore than one may ignore the fact that no one has proffered a fulfilled Day of the Trumpets – whilst there is pontification upon the whys and wherefores of the Day of Atonement with its [supposedly] tandem IJ. Or, my brief-in-particular,

that of presuming upon Gd by proclaiming the meanings of the prophecies of the Book of Daniel – again, ignoring Gd’s imperative to seal the book until the time of the end – the same end which He declared would be recognizable by certain facts occurring – the same not having been a part of the Nineteenth Century.

My “idea” is a simple repeat of Hosea and Jeremiah’s prophecy. Two credible, read credible, prophets.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:pkrause

Well than I'm glad that Jesus found it again when he came for a visit to earth for approxamitly(sp) 30+ years

Whew! I'm glad we found the Sabbath again.

>>What I find hard to believe is that the NT writers would write everything they did about a day that wasn't even the Sabbath but was possibly the third or fourth or sixth day of the week.<<

Do you don’t find it “hard to believe” that the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement to sprinkle blood upon the Ark, which was no longer in the Holy of Holies following the return from the Babylonian Captivity?—no?—so why do find a thing more explicitly dwelt upon in Holy Writ more difficult to believe?

>>And why would Jesus go through a charade regarding the Sabbath knowing full well that the whole thing was nonsense?<<

Chatter over mind. Jesus Christ was born a Jew – needing to follow Jewish customs within a Jewish economy – such as regarding their Sabbaths. Is it nonsense to respect the mores of a community within which one lives? Do you think that Jesus Christ was a contentious jerk re the community within which He was born and – to a large extent, grew up?—I don’t think so. So the question obtains...

why did Jesus Christ make such a big thing of ‘not resting upon the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews? Perhaps, it was that He was expositing Holy Writ, specifically Hosea and Jeremiah, by a life lived – that the wise and those of understanding – who ‘seeing’ might perceive?

>>For instance, in Matt. 24: 20, why did Jesus tell his disciples to be sure and pray about a day that no one knew or could even identify.<<

Jesus Christ’s disciples had asked Him a multipart question. Matthew 24:20 addressed their question re the end of time. It seems that should the ‘end of time’ be close upon us – there are presently – several Sabbaths within the Xtian community; that is, Jesus Christ’s body.

Whatsoever you do, do it as unto the Lord – for therein dwelleth sanctification.

>>For me the belief that the Sabbath flew the coop before the time of Christ is as nonsensical as anything I've seen in a long time.<<

“flew the coop”? “nonsensical”?—and you hold forth as expositor...!? Whoever suggested that the Sabbath “flew the coop”? ______ assertion. Gd removed it, as He said He would – Big difference!

>>I don't find a shred of valid evidence in its support. I see more evidence and reason for Rondo's positions than for this one.<<

Then, for crying out loud – disprove Hosea (2:11) and Jeremiah (Lam 2:6) – rather than reiterating ‘peculiarities’ – otherwise, you stand indicted. Likewise, with the IJ. Either define the Memorial of Blowing of Trumpets, what it indicated, and when its Typology was fulfilled – that you may justifiably proceed to an exposition upon the Day of Atonement 1844 and tandem it – the IJ.

Timing and chronology – matters, my friend.

Sheesh!—how anyone can think that the Pope’s Gregorian calendar, or Hillel’s ‘postponements’ calendar harmonizes with the OT calendar – defies the expositive seriousness of Writ. The OT Seventh-day Sabbaths were not consistent solely with seven-day cycles.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:John317

I am asking what calender do you go by. For instance, when people tell you that it is Wednesday or Saturday, do you tell them it is not?

Or when you date your letters, do you date them according to the Gregorian calandar? For instance, do you believe this is Monday, November 8, 2010?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Shhhh, don't tell. I go by the Gregorian evil Babylonish, Popish counterfeit. But then,

I'm not the one attempting to harmonize Gds OT Seventh-day Sabbaths with the seven day cycles of the Popish ;-) calendar, am I?[ed,jasd]

>>Please explain why you believe Seventh-day Adventists should view the Gregorian calendar as evil or contrary to what the SDA church teaches. In other words,<<

I employed a literary device – depending upon perception – it could be seen as either satire or wit – small difference.

I thought I’d use satire to portray the Pope’s calendar as evil; however, I do not take it as such – it’s simply a calendar – no subtext; further, I did not state that it is contrary to what “the SDA church teaches”.

>>...how is the SDA church wrong to go by the Gregorian calander, and how does it lead to not keeping the true seventh day of the week as the Sabbath? Please show examples and if possible show references for what you are claiming.

I’ve already addressed that – several times over.

John317, rather than eliciting positions from others, which you discard anyway – I suggest you study the issue – honestly. It is commonsensical. The most cursory reading of the OT revals the impossibility of following the OT Seventh-day Sabbaths by the simple seven-day cycles of the Gregorian.

Should one seriously examine the differences between the calendars of the OT, the Gregorian, and the Hillel II – then one finds – that he or she would no longer be able to function as a ‘peat-repeat’ expounder of ‘tent meetings’ folly.

>>If the Sabbath today is not the true Sabbath, what day of the week is it in reality according to God's calender?<<

John317, you’re not paying attention. No one knows how to reproduce Gd’s OT calendar. It depended to a large degree upon determinations made by the priests and the factoring of seasonal weather/harvest conditions. It was ever changing; that is, without mention of the interstices and the intercalaries – neither are represented in the Gregorian!—and the Hillel II substitutes unBiblical postponements... The Hillel lI departs so far from Biblical injunction as to

begin the year in the Autumnal seventh month of Tishri – rather than the Biblical first month Abib/Spring (what does that do to the Sabbaths of the seventh month (Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles – Ex 12, Lev 23)?. The Sabbatarian keys his/her Sabbaths to either the Gregorian, or to a lesser extent – the Hillel II – both manmade and both unBiblical!

Ultimately, it comes down to what is impressed upon a person’s innermost. That day, should one feel beholden to ‘keep’ any day at all – if kept conscientiously, is separated from the other common days by being made holy/sanctified by his or her act of conscience.

>>Can't the astronomers tell which day is which? Are they also confused about the weekly cycle, in your view?<<

John317, again, and again – it is not a matter of seven day cycles – but of things one might even call vagaries, such as, for example, the testimony of multiple witnesses to the first sighting of the new moon – the condition of the barley harvest – the disposition of the extra days (approx. 10) in a lunar year – those of the solar calendar – the yearly progression of seasons, etc.

Take the simple matter of St John’s “High Sabbath”. There is no agreement in the Xtian community to its meaning – Pasch only, Pasch and Seventh-day Sabbath coinciding, etc... who can say for certain?—there is no one.

The OT calendar is gone and is irreproducible!—and with it the OT Seventh-day Sabbath – according to Gd – per His prophets Hosea and Jeremiah.

[jasd]

[bump]

Hoo-ah!--you lucky few! I'm back in town and ready to recommence - although my landline is still on the fritz (subscribed to a DSL service and though they were quick to make the $$$ adjustments - they've been awfully slow to make the fix that will will get me up and running) - so, am posting from the library...

I vacationed on the Oregon Coast this past month... and let me tell y'all - Oregon is, assuredly, the 'place'.

Isaiah 60:13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

[jasd]

Responding to posts submitted to...

Rondo's Discussion about the Covenants and the Sabbath

Quote:

Quote:jasd

You seem more dedicated to fencing with a rhetorical blade that arriving at best case understanding. Moreover, you are doing so more with the query than with the proffer.

Redolent insincerity proven by feign of not having before encountered proffered argumentation to wit:

“Yes, of course Christ knew the prophecies of Hosea and Jeremiah. But what verses do you have in mind?”

This comes from the same guy who, with me, has dialoged upon several occasions – the very verses I allude. The same verses I've posted and commented upon a number of times in as many posts...

And he asks, “...what verses do you have in mind?”[ed.jasd]

>>All this in order to avoid giving the exact references in Hosea and Jeremiah that you're referring to?<<

I lose patience with the fancy footwork – the shuffle of a flatfoot buck dance – and, whatever the perception – I made a legitimate observation. You’ve danced around so much of what has already been posted on this thread – and now you attempt to do likewise with me.

>>I don't remember the exact references you've given, which is why I ask you for them.<<

I credit you capable – with abilities you now claim you do not possess. You, surely, ought to be able to keep track of the salient points of positions you’ve vigorously engaged both for and against... Should you not be able – then, imho – you ought not to be holding forth here from a weighted position. Your office should be one held in highest regard for its circumspection, temperateness, and other good graces... :-(

>>Besides, there are hundreds of people who read these discussions and they need to know what verses in Hosea and Jeremiah you're talking about.<<

Hundreds?—Oh! good save – no matter that I’ve posted them (references) – what some might consider ad nauseum.

>>Remember they've probably never read your previous discussions where you mentioned them.<<

Probably?—okay, I take that as advisement; following – are the relevant verses:

Hosea 2:11 and

Lamentations 2:6.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Sweetly deceitful and lacking its supposed charm.

You are affronted by that!!??? THAT is so... so, so Grotty!—flying with a broken wing, as it were. I regard you too well to credit you with that sort of peckerwood veneer. Rather, I take it as your being particularly – of a moment – out of sorts.

I reprised the foregoing ”Redolent insincerity” and feign” with “Sweetly deceitful” – playing upon snynonimity; the which, I also validated by reference.

No matter how it is sliced – my observation stands – notwithstanding, whether the forum member is or is not allowed a warranted observation... How were you able to segue from a thing of such paucity into a volatile and Le Outré post?*

I hazard to guess that you inferred what was not implied – and spontaneously combusted.

*Example: there is an absolute absence of a quantifiable coherence between “sweetly deceiving” and the fulminating gobsmack which followed! Going South hanging a left...?

[John317]

jasd, your posts are confusing because they don't consistently indicate to whom they are responding, and your "quotes" often don't show who wrote the quotes. Please use the "quote" & "quick quotes," etc., correctly.